The Candid Eye

August 3, 2009

Distortion of Indian history – Part 9

Source:- Article by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

The Distorted History of Fatehpur Sikri:

It has been said earlier how the authorship of the massive fortress in Agra is being falsely attributed to Akbar. In a similar manner, Akbar is being projected as the author of another fort-palace complex, a excellent example of Hindu architecture, at Fatehpur Sikri, nearly 37 Km away from the city of Agra.

  

 

 The so called pseudo secular and the Marxist historians are propagating the idea that the place was originally called Sikri and it was a small village surrounded by deep forest infested with wild animals. In that village, a Sufi saint called Shaikh Salim Chisti began to live in a small hut in 1537. At that time, Akbar was mentally upset as he did not have a male child.

To narrate the situation, Nizam-ud-din Ahmad in his Tabakat-i-Akbariwrites, “The Emperor had several sons born to him, but none of them had lived. Shaikh Salim Chisti, who resided at the town of Sikri, twelve kos from Agra, had gladdened him with the promise of a son. The Emperor went to visit the Shaikh several times, and remained there ten or twenty days on each occasion.  …  When one of the Emperor’s wives became pregnant, he conveyed her to the dwelling of the Shaikh, and left her there. Sometimes he stayed there himself, sometimes at Agra . He gave the name of Fathpur to Sikri, and built a bazaar and baths there.” [1] “Salim, the old saint, had settled among the rocks and wild beasts as a hermit in A D 1537-8 (A H 944), and in the year following had constructed a monastery and school-house.” [2]

In this regard, historian V A Smithin his Akbar The Great Mogulalso writes, “Akbar resolved at this time to press his scheme for converting the obscure village of Sikri into a great city. His reasons, or some of them, for doing so may be stated in the words of Abu-l Fazl: – Inasmuch as his exalted sons [Salim and Murad] had taken their birth in Sikri and the God-knowing spirit of Shaikh Salim had taken possession thereof, his holy heart desired to give outward splendour to this spot which possessed spiritual grandeur. Now that his standards had arrived at this place, his former design was passed forward, and an order was issued that the superintendents of affairs should erect lofty buildings for the use of the Shahinshah.” [3] 

He further continues, “A wall of masonry was built round the town, but never completed, and dwellings of all classes were constructed, as well as schools, baths, and other public institutions, the indispensable gardens not being neglected. The Emperor, after the conquest of Gujarat , gave it the name of Fathabad (town of victory), which was soon exchanged in both popular and official use for the synonymous Fathpur..” [2] V A Smith continues, “The language of Abu-l Fazl in the above passage quoted might be understood to mean that Akbar did not begin his extensive programme of building at Fathpur-Sikri until 1571, but that is not the fact. The design had been formed in his mind and his had actually been begun in 1569.” [2] 

But most of the historians believe that Akbar began the so called construction of Fatehpur Sikri in 1571, and hence the historian R C Majumdar writes, “From there (Punjab) he returned to Ajmer (corrupt of Sanskrit Ajeya Meru) by way of Hissar and on 9th August, 1571, arrived at Sikri which he now decided to make his capital as the auspicious place where his two sons Salim and Murad had been born. The resources of his expanding empire and the artistic genius of India and Persia were employed to convert the petty, quiet hamlet into a crowded  proud metropolis which even in its lost glory was regarded by Fitch in 1585 as much greater than Elizabethan London.” [4] From the above statement it implies that Akbar began the so called construction of Fatehpur Sikri in 1571 and it is not clear, from the above statements, when the job was completed. Smith also says that, Akbar built the Buland Darwaza to commemorate his conquest of Gujarat in 1575-76. [5]

But many hold the view that Akbar finished the construction in 1585.  So, a general notification, in this regard, reads, “Fatehpur Sikri was built during 1571 and 1585. …  This town was built by the Mughal Emperor, Akbar. He had planned this city as his capital but shortage of water compelled him to abandon the city.. … Fatehpur Sikri is one of the finest examples of Mughal architectural splendour at its height.” [6] The Wikipedia Encyclopedia, in this context, says, Fatehpur Sikri is a city and a municipal board in Agra district in the state of Uttar PradeshIndia. The historical city was constructed by Mughal emperor Akbar beginning in 1570 and served as the empire’s capital from 1571 until 1585, when it was abandoned for reasons that remain unclear.” [7]

One should notice that the statements quoted above are terribly inconsistent. According to Smith, Akbar began the construction of the city in 1571 (or 1569) and before that the place was a small village. According to R C Majumdar, in 1571, Akbar decided to use the auspicious place as the capital of his empire. But according to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, “Akbar started to use the place as the capital of his empire from 1571 and continued to use the place as the capital up to 1585.” The question naturally arises – How many years Akbar took to convert the small village Sikri into a city? Was it possible for Akbar to shift his capital to Sikri before the completion of the said construction? The most ridiculous part of the episode is that, according to Wikipedia Encyclopedia, Akbar started to use Sikri as his capital in the same year the construction of the city had begun. So, it implies that, Akbar, in 1571, had shifted his capital from the city of Agra to a desolate village called Sikri, surrounded by jungles.

The reader might have noticed another anomaly in the above narrations. According to some authors, the construction of the city was completed in 1585, and in the same year it was abandoned due to scarcity of water. As if the so called scarcity of water fell, all on a sudden, from the sky without giving any prior hint and no body could foresee that. Most importantly, these contradictory statements lead one to conclude that Akbar the fool spoiled so much money for setting up the new city in vain.

There are other anomalies as well. It has been mentioned above that, according to V A Smith, Akbar built the Buland Darwaza as a commemoration of his conquest of Gujarat in 1575-76. While an epigraph inscribed on the Buland Darwaza says that it was built in 1601, when Akbar returned from Daccan. But it has been said above that the city of Fatehpur Sikri was abandoned in 1585. So, it becomes unacceptable because in that case it should be concluded that Akbar built the Buland Darwaza in the abandoned city of Fatehpur Sikri. So, according to another version, it is said that, Fatehpur Sikri was finally abandoned in 1604 and the Buland Darwaza was erected in 1601. [8]

However, to sum up the above narrations, Akbar began the construction of the city of Fatehpur Sikri in 1571 and the construction was completed in 1785. Or, Akbar took 14 years to complete the job. But whosoever has visited the site would refuse to believe that such a massive construction, containing the invincible fort and innumerable palaces therein with fine stone carvings, could be constructed within 14 or 15 years. To make this unbelievable story believable, the so called pseudo secular and Marxist historians of India resort to treachery and lie, and say, “The work was pushed on with such phenomenal speed that, as if by magic palaces, public buildings, mosques and tombs, gardens and baths, pavilions and water courses were called into being beneath the barren sandstone ridge of Sikri.” [8]

In this context, it should be mentioned what absurd Jahangir, son of Akbar, has written in his autobiography, regarding the construction of Fatehpur Sikri. He writes, “In course of fourteen to fifteen years, that hill full of wild beasts became a city containing all kinds of gardens and buildings, lofty edifices and pleasant places attractive to the heart.” [8]

 

It has been pointed out above that historians believe that Akbar built the Buland Darwaza (the Great Portal) in 1601 as a monument after the conquest of Gujarat . In this regard, our historians write, “The southern entrance to the Jam-i-Masjid at Fatehpur Sikri was considered to be suitable position, and the original entrance was replaced by the construction of a massive portal. This was known as the Buland Darwaja.” [9] It is important to note here that originally there was a gate where the Buland Darwaza stands today. Common sense tells us that the said gate was very old and hence Akbar found it suitable to demolish that worn out gate and make a new one. Had this older gate been built by Akbar, hardly 15 years ago, he would have certainly not shown any interest to demolish the same to be replaced by the new gate called Buland Darwaza.

The True History of Fatehpur Sikri:

 

We now may pay heed to what another group of historians, known as nationalist historians, have to say in this regard. These historians are convinced that the authorship of the fort-palace complex at Fatehpur Sikri is being falsely attributed to Akbar. According to them the city, now known as Fatehpur Sikri, was a thriving and prosperous city from very older times. Once upon a time, during the times of Babar, Akbar’s grand father, the fort-palace complex at Fatehpur, was under the occupation of Rana Sangram Singh of Mewar. In 1527, a battle was fought between Babar and Maharana Sangram Singh, known as the Battle of Khanua, in a field close to the fort of Fatehpur. In that battle Babar defeated Rana Sangram Singh and thus the occupation of the fort went to the Mughals.

There are many references to show that fort at Fatehpur (or Fathpur) was there even centuries before the times of Akbar. The Muslim chronicler Yahya bin Ahmad, in his Tarikh-i-Mubarakshahi, writes, “On the 19th Jumada-l awwal, 808 H ( 12th November, 1405 AD), a battle was fought between them (Khizr Khan and Ikbal Khan). At the first charge, Ikbal wasa defeated and fled.  …(Later on) He was killed and his head was cut off and sent to Fathpur.” [10] The statement is sufficient to prove that, at least 150 years before the times of Akbar, Fatehpur Sikri was a place of political importance, not an isolated village surrounded by jungle.

Yahya bin Ahmad also writes, “Sikri, which is now known as Fathpur, was entrusted to Malik Khairu-d din Tuhfa. His Majesty (Mubarak Shah) then proceeded towards Gwalior .” [11] This statement conclusively proves that the city which is now known as Fatehpur was originally known as Sikri. It has been said earlier that the Battle of Khanua was fought between Babar and Rana Sangram Singh in a field close to Fatehpur Sikri. Babar, in his autobiography Tuzak-i-Babrihas given the description of the battle. The Tuzak-i-Babri says that Babar left Agra on 11th February, 1527 AD and advanced towards Fatehpur to meet Rana Sangram Singh. Babar writes, “After marching a kos, we found that the enemy had retreated. There being a large tank on our left, I encamped there, to have the benefit of water.” [12]

At that hour, Babar sent an advanced team of 1000 men, under the care of Abdul Aziz and Mollah Apak, to assess the situation and collect prior intelligence. To describe the situation, Babar writes, “… without taking any precautions, he (Abdul Aziz) advanced as far as Kanwahah, which is five kos from Sikri.” [13] But a troop of 4000 or 5000 Rajputs routed them and compelled them to return to their base.

It is to be noted here that, Rana Sangram Singh was the most famous Hindu warrior at that time and he carried 82 scars on his body. So, naturally, Babar’s army was visibly nervous. Just on the day, previous to the battle, Babar held meeting with his nervous generals. To comment on the result of the discussions, Babar writes, “At this time, as I have already observed, in consequence of the preceding events, a general consternation and alarm prevailed among great and small. There was not a single person who uttered a manly word, nor an individual who delivered a manly opinion.” [14]

As mentioned above, Babar camped outside the wall of Sikri, near a big tank and the Rajput camp was inside the wall. The chief Rajput generals were Rawal Udai Singh, Medini Ray, Bhamal, Varmadev and Siladitya, the caretaker of the Raisin Fort. Beside that, there were a few Afghan generals in the Rajput army and the most prominent among them were Hasan Khan and Sikandar Lodi. After being thrashed at Kanwahah, the Mughal army became extremely frightened and advised Babar to retreat.

So, from the above facts, it becomes evident that, if the Rajputs continued their attack from the incident of Kanwahah, the Mughal army would have defeated and dispersed. But Sangram Singh took time and gave the Mughal army an opportunity to re-assemble. In this context, we should note another development. Babar had initiated a dialogue with Sangram Singh through Siladitya, but later on he succeeded to bribe Siladitya to bring him to his side. This enabled Babar to gather some vital military secrets of the Rajput army.

However, on 17th (or 16th) March, 1527 AD, the battle took place at the field of Khanua, close to Sikri and 37 Km from Agra . As soon as the battle began, Siladitya changed side with his men and in addition to that, the Afghan generals Hasan Khan and Sikandar Lodi and their army preferred not to fight against the Mussalmans of Babar’s army and remained, more or less, silent spectators. The actual strength of the Rajput army was not properly recorded, but according to Col Tod, there were 80,000 horses and 500 elephants in the Rajput army. [15]

The fierce battle began in the morning and continued for ten hours. When the victory was under the control of the Rajputs, Sangram Singh suffered a severe wound and had to leave the battle field. The incident made the Rajput army disappointed and they began to disperse, and thus victory went to the hands of the Mughals. To describe the incident, Babar writes, “Having defeated the enemy, we pursued them with great slaughter. Their camp might be two kos distant from ours. On reaching it, I sent on Muhammadi and some other officers, with the order to follow them in close pursuit, slaying and cutting them off, so that they should not have the time to re-assemble.” [16]

Babar continues, “The battle was fought within the view of a small hill, near our camp. On this hillock I directed a tower of the skulls of the infidels to be constructed. … Immense numbers of the dead bodies of the pagans and apostates had fallen in their flight, all the way to Bayana, and even as far as Alwar and Mewat.” [16] After entering the fort, Babar ordered general massacre and Muhammadi and other Mughal generals cut down the civilians of the city of Sikri en masse. There are no proper records of how many Hindus were slaughtered on that day. The so called secular and Marxist historians always try to keep the figure low. It has been mentioned that there were 80,000 strong cavalry and 500 elephants in the Rajput army. Hence, many believe that, including the foot-soldiers, the Rajput army was 200,000 strong, and nearly 100,000 of them were taken prisoners and slaughtered on that day. In addition to that, about another 100,000 civilians were massacred in the city.

It has been mentioned earlier that after the mass-massacre of the Hindus in the Chittor Fort by Akbar, Rajput Kings abandoned the fort and thereafter, they used the fort at Udaipur as their residence and the seat of the government. In a similar manner, the Rajput kings had abandoned the Fort of Sikri after the mass-massacre by Babar, as mentioned above. And, as a result, the city of Fatehpur Sikri gradually turned into a desolate jungle. Later on, Akbar perhaps took an initiative to revive the city by clearing the jungle and our dishonest historians are portraying that as Akbar’s creation of the new city of Fatehpur Sikri. A study of the history of Fatehpur Sikri, it appears that, Akbar might have built a minutely small part, the Buland Darwaza, of the entire edifice and nothing else. And later on, he might have built the tomb of Shaikh Salim Chisti.  

Another point of vital importance should be highlighted in this context. Anyone, whosoever has visited the Fort-Palace complex at Fatehpur Sikri, it must not have escaped his notice that all the palaces and buildings reveal overwhelmingly Hindu style of architecture and stone carving. According to experts, they are either of Rajasthani or Gujarati style. This is due to the simple reason that the Rajput Hindu kings were the real authors of those buildings and palaces. But to hide the true history, the despicable creatures, callef secular and Marxist historians, say that, Akbar engaged both Hindu and Muslim artists of Persia for building the palaces and stone carving. They also say that, Akbar was so generous that he had no hesitation to accept Hindu style of architecture.But all these lies are going to be exposed very soon as the real history of Fatehpur Sikri has started to reveal due to fresh archaeological discoveries. We expect to deal that aspect in the next installment.

 

(To be continued)

References:

[1] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, The History of India -As Told by Its Own Historians (in 8 volumes), Low Price Publication, Delhi (1996) V, 332-333.

[2] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press, 105.

[3] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 104-105.

[4] R. C, Majumdar, The History and Cultures of the Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (in 12 Vols) ,VII ,125.

[5] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 107.

[6] (www.taj-mahal-india-travel.com/monuments-places-to-visit/fatehpur-sikri.html)

[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatehpur_Sikri)

[8] R. C, Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 760.

[9] R. C, Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 763.

[10] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 40.

[11] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 62.

[12] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 268.

[13] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 267.

[14] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 269.

[15] R. C, Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 36.

[16] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 272.

Advertisements

August 2, 2009

Distortions of Indian history – Part 8

Picture of Akbar

Original source:- Article by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

What Akbar really was:

When the Part 5A of the current series of articles DISTORTION OF INDIAN HISTORY FOR MUSLIM APPEASEMENT, was posted on the FFI, a reader commented, “Historians site two historic rulers of India as ‘the great’. One is Buddhist Asoka. The next is Muslim Akbar. The subcontinent has been the abode of Hindus throughout history, but why has there not been a single Hindu ruler who could earn the honorific ‘The great’? Why couldn’t Hinduism produce one? What is wrong with Hinduism?” In this context, I would request the reader to note that Hindus do not write Holy Vedas, Holy Upanishads or Holy Bhagavadgita and so on, because the Hindu religious scriptures are really holy.

In a similar manner, almost all the Hindu kings were great and hence it is unnecessary to tag them as great.We should quote the comment of another reader, in this regard. He writes, “Unfortunately the Indian History was written by the British colonialists and they wanted to show that British Empire was the best thing for India and after independence Leftist took over. In fact, there were innumerable great Hindu kings. …  Alexander although was able to defeat Porus, a Hindu king, but the fight was so frightening that his soldiers revolted for any further attack on India and thus he started moving backward from there to Greek.” In this context, it should be said that Alexander was badly defeated by King Porus at the Battle of the Hydaspes River. Particularly, the Greek army failed completely to defend the attack by trained elephants of Porus. Moreover, Alexander suffered a mortal wound in that battle which caused his death at Babylon . The Hollywood film Alexander, directed by Oliver Stone, confirms this fact.

However, it should also be mentioned that the history of India , which we read in the history books, has been written according to the guidelines set by the British occupiers and those British rulers were Hindu bashers. But somehow or rather, they could not ignore the greatness of Emperor Ashok. It is to be noted here that the so called secular historians of India try to project Akbar even greater than Emperor Ashok. While commenting on this aspect, V A Smith writes, “Akbar would have laughed at the remorse felt by Ashok for the miseries caused by the conquest of Kalinga, and would have utterly condemned his great predecessor’s decision to abstain from all further wars of aggression.” [1]

We should quote here the comment of another author regarding the greatness of Akbar. He writes, “The personality and nature of Akbar has been nicely summed up by the Editor of Father Monserrate’s Commentarius. The editor’s introduction states, “In the long line of Indian sovereigns, the towering personalities of Ashoka and Akbar (because of his dread) stand high above the rest… Akbar’s greed for conquest and glory and his lack of sincerity form a marked contrast to Ashoka’s paternal rule, genuine self-control and spiritual ambition. Akbar’s wars were those of a true descendent of Timur, and had all the gruesome associations which this fact implies. … His character with its mixture of ambition and cunning has now been laid bare. He has been rightly compared to a pike in a pond preying upon his weaker neighbours.”[2] He also writes, “With his treacherous nature and the unlimited power than he wielded over a vast region qualifies him to be one of the foremost tyrants and sadists in India ’s history, or perhaps, even world history. He was no less cruel a tyrant than any of his ancestors.” [2]

The so called secular historians of India also assert that, since Akbar was born and died in India , he must be accepted as an Indian monarch. In this context, V A Smith writes, “Akbar was a foreigner in India . He had not a drop of Indian blood in his veins.” [3] To elaborate this point, P N Oak writes, “Akbar was a direct descendant in the 7th generation on his father’s side from Tamerlain (or Taimur)  and on the mother’s side from Chengiz Khan.” [4] He also writes, “Intemperance was the besetting sin of the Timuroid royal family, as it was of many other ruling Muslim houses. …Babur was an elegant toper. … Humayun made himself stupid with opium. …Akbar permitted himself the practice of both vices.” [5]

Whosoever has studied even a bit of Islam, has seen that the concepts like nationality, nationalism, patriotism or love for the motherland etc are absent in Islam. On the contrary, Islam imposes the concept of Millat and Kufr and divides the entire humanity into two groups, namely Momems (or Muslims) and Kafirs. The aggregate of all the Muslims is called Islamic Umma. As a result, Muslims have no loyalty to the country where they live. They have loyalty to the Islamic Umma and to the Islamic holy places, Mecca and Medina . From this view point,even the converted Muslims, who live in India , are not Indians. They have no loyalty to India and to its history and culture, and that is the reason, they refuse to sing India ’s National Song “Vande Mataram” (I worship my motherland). They are loyal to Allah, loyal to Islam and Islamic Umma, and loyal to Mecca and Medina . They can be called resident non-Indians but not IndiansSo it is not difficult to understand that Akbar’s Indian-ness is a myth.

Another reader has expressed a completely different view. He writes, “Why would historians paint Akbar good to please Muslims doesn’t make sense. Because, Akbar was not a Muslim himself. He was the follower of Din e Elahi, a religion founded by himself which had elements of Hinduism and Islam in it. Just because he had a Muslim name doesn’t make him Muslim.” In this context, it should be said that Akbar preached his religion at the fag end of his life and hence through most of his life, he was a Muslim. If a robber commits robbery throughout his life and abandons it just before his death, should he be called a robber or an innocent gentleman! Despite his preaching of his new religion Din-i-Ilahi, many believe that “Akbar was born a muslim, lived like a muslim and died as a muslim; that too a very fanatic one.” [2]

At this point, it should be made clear that, Akbar preached his new religion Din-i-Ilahi not out of his respect for other religion, but for his personal glorification. He wanted to be a prophet, like Muhammad, by inventing and floating this new religion. “He understood the trick of Muhammad and wanted to be another Muhammad with a new religion din-i-Ilahi”, says a commentator. In this context, we should mention another aspect of Akbar’s life that reflects his intense desire to project himself as a religious personality.  Xavier, a Jesuit in Akbar’s court, gives a typical instance of Akbar’s perfidy in making people drink water in which his feet had been washed. [2] While commenting on this aspect, V A Smith writes, “Xavier writes, Akbar posed “as a Prophet, wishing it to be understood that he works miracles through healing the sick by means of the water in which he washed the feet.” [6]

 To lure the Hindus to his new religion, he proposed to repeal Jejya (Poll Tax) and pilgrimage tax and ban of cow slaughter. But they were never implemented. So the author of Akbar: The Great Tyrannical Monarch writes, “The infamous Jiziya tax, which is special tax exaction from the Hindus, was never abolished by Akbar. Time and time again different people had approached seeking exemption from Jiziya. Everytime the exemption was ostensibly issued, but never was actually implemented.” [2]

Many believe that Akbar, who might be a lecher and a diabolic killer, not an iconoclast and he did not demolish Hindu temples. As a matter of fact, Akbar was mainly concerned with his personal glorification, money and women and hence might not have found much time to concentrate on the matter of desecrating Hindu temples and breaking Hindu Idols.

However, Akbar’s hands were not clean from this sin. While commenting on this aspect of Akbar , Col Tod writes,“Not only that he forcibly annihilated innumerable humans, he also had no respect for temples and deities and willingly indulged in destruction of such places of worship. ).” [7] “Throughout Akbar’s reign, temples used to razed to the ground or misappropriated as mosques and cows were slaughtered in them, as happened in the battle at Nagarkot. No symbol of Hindu origin and design was spared from the iconoclastic wrath of Akbar.” [2]

While commenting on this aspect of Akbar, V A Smith writes, “The holy Hindu cities of Prayag and Banaras , were plundered by Akbar because their residents were rash enough to close their gates! No wonder Prayag of today has no ancient monuments — whatever remain are a rubble! It is rather obvious that Akbar had no respect and reverence for cities considered holy by Hindus, let alone esteem for human life and property. Also, it is evident from this instance that Akbar’s subjects were horrified and scared upon the arrival of their king into their city. If at all Akbar was so magnanimous, why then did not the people come forward and greet him?” [8]

Monserrate, a contemporary of Akbar, writes, “The religious zeal of the Musalmans has destroyed all the idol temples which used to be numerous. In place of Hindu temples, countless tombs and little shrines of wicked and worthless Musalmans have been erected in which these men are worshipped with vain superstition as though they were saints. Not only did the muslims destroy the idols, but usurped the existing temples and converted them into tombs of insignificant people.”[9]

He further continues, “Akbar has neither any love or compassion for Hindus as is apparent from the above examples. Hindus were openly despised and contemptously treated under Akbar’s fanatical rule as under any other rule. Akbar was only one of the many links of the despotic and cruel Moghal rule in India , and enforced the tradition of his forefathers with sincerity and equal ruthlessness.”[9]

Akbar’s shameless court flatterers, to please their master, have painted him as the most handsome man on the earth and our secular and Marxist historians are also following those flatterers. But Akbar’s physique was anything but handsome. Historian V A Smith, in this regard, writes, “Akbar (in mid-life) was a man of moderate stature, perhaps 5’7” in height, broad-chested, narrow waisted and long armed. His legs were somewhat bowed inward and when walking he slightly dragged the left leg, as if he were lame. His head drooped a little toward the right shoulder. … The nose was rather short, with a bony prominence in the middle and nostrils dilated as if with anger.  …and his complexion was dark.” [10] So a commentator writes, “Not only was this guy a barbarian, he was also very ugly.”

 

Akbar’s Lechery:

It has been said earlier that Akbar was mainly concerned with personal glory, money and women and his wars and conquests were aimed to achieve these three goals. So the author of Akbar; the great tyrannical monarch, writes, “Akbar possessed a inordinate lust for women, just like his ancestors and predecessors. One of Akbar’s motives during his wars of aggression against various rulers was to appropriate their women, daughters and sisters.” [2]

Some historians try to project that Akbar practiced monogamy throughout his life. While commenting on this aspect, V A Smith writes, “That Akbar remained monogamous throughout his life is indeed history falsified myth.” [11]He also writes “Akbar, throughout his life, allowed himself ample latitude in the matter of wives and concubines! … Akbar had introduced a whole host of Hindu women, the daughters of eminent Hindu Rajahs, into his harem.” [12] Historian Dr A L Srivastava has given a detail account in his Akbar the Great,  how Akbar coerced the rulers of Jaipur for sending his daughters to Akbar’s harem [2]

Historian J M Shelat writes,”After the “Jauhar” that followed the killing of Rani Durgawati, the two women left alive, Kamalavati (sister of Rani Durgawati) and the daughter of the Raja of Purangad (daughter-in-law of the deceased queen) were sent to Agra to enter Akbar’s harem.” [13] “It should also be observed that admittance into Akbar’s harem was available mainly to virgins and others’ were “disqualified”. In spite of such disgusting and lewd personal affairs, inducting women of abducted or killed Hindu warriors into his harem as slaves and prostitutes; it is bewildering that Akbar is hailed as a righteous and noble emperor.” [2]

To describe Akbar’s uxorious character, V A Smith writes, “Abul Fazl never tires of repeating that Akbar during his early years remained ‘behind the veil’. What he means thereby is that Akbar used to spend most of his time in his harem.” [14] Akbar habitually drank hard and used to have, for the most of the day, licentous relations with women of his harem. There is no doubt that, both drinking and engaging in debauched sexual activities was inherited by Akbar from his Tartar ancestors. [2]

To describe Akbar’s infinite lewdness, Abul Fazl in his Ain-i-Akbari, writes, “His majesty has established a wine shop near the palace … The prostitutes of the realm collected at the shop could scarcely be counted, so large was their number .. The dancing girls used to be taken home by the courtiers. If any well known courtier wanted to have a virgin they should first have His Majesty’s [Akbar’s] permission.” [15] He also writes that, His Majesty [Akbar] himself used to call these prostitutes and ask them who had deprived them of their virginity?“This was the state of affairs during Akbar’s rule, where alcoholism, sodomy, prostitution and murderous assaults were permitted by the king himself. The conditions of the civic life during Akbar’s life is shocking!”[16]

“Whole of India was reduced to a brothel during the Moghal rule and Akbar, one of the Emperors, is being glorified as one of the patrons of the vast brothel. The above instances may suffice to convince the impartial reader that Akbar’s whole career was a saga of uninhibited licentiousness backed by the royal brute.” [2]Who were these so called prostitutes? Wherefrom did a whole army of prostitutes suddenly descend on Akbar’s realm, like swarm of locusts? “The answer is that these ever-increasing prostitutes were none other than decent Hindu women whose homes were daily raided and plundered and their men-folk were either massacred or converted, were haplessly left to fend for themselves and exposed to the mercy of the sex hungry Mussalman courtiers.” [16]

Akbar had made it a pernicious custom to demand choicest women from the household of vanquished foes.  Thus all the women in territories conquered by Akbar, whether a commoner, or of noble or royal descend, were at Akbar’s mercy. According to this custom, all the Rajput kings who had submitted to Akbar, were forced to sent their daughters or sisters to Akbar’s harem, where they had to live as sex-slaves. Raja Man Singh of Jaipur had to offer his sister to Akbar. Akbar’s cruelty towards the Hindu women, kidnapped and shut up in his harem, were staggering and his much vaunted marriages, said to have been contracted for communal integration and harmony, were nothing but outrageous kidnappings brought about with the force of arms. It has been mentioned earlier, how the Rajput women of the Chittor Fort sacrificed their lives in Jauhar to avoid this disgrace and humiliation.

Only in one occasion, the said custom was slackened and when the Treaty of Ranathambhor between Akbar and the chiefs of Bundi (who owned the fort) was made, the first condition of the said treaty read that the chiefs of Bundi be exempt from the custom, degrading to a Rajputs, of sending a ‘bride’ to the royal harem. To narrate the incident, V A Smith writes, “A treaty was drawn up on the spot, and mediated by the prince of Amber {Jaipur], which presents a good picture of Hindu feeling. [The terms were] (1) that the chiefs of Bundi should be exempted from that custom, degrading to a Rajput, of sending a dola [bride] to the royal harem; (2) exemption from jizya or poll-tax; (3) that the chiefs of Bundi should not be compelled to cross the Attock; (4) that the vassals of Bundi should be exempted from the obligation of sending their wives or female relatives ‘to hold a stall in the Mina bazaar’ at the palace, on the festival of Nauroza [New Year’s Day] and so on. [17]

In the middle of Jan 1562, Akbar made a pilgrimage to the tomb of Khwaja Mainuddin Chisti of Ajmir. On the way, Raja Bihari Mal of Amber entered a peace treaty with Akbar and, according to the said custom, Raja Bihari Mal offered him the hand of his daughter in marriage to Akbar. However, the princess later on became the mother of emperor Jahangir.

Even the Muslim women were not safe from Akbar’s lust. In 1564, Akbar compelled one Shaikh of Delhi to divorce his wife in his favour[18] Akbar had an eye on Bairam Khan’s wife and married her soon after Bairam Khan was murdered. Akbar did not hesitate to have caused this violent and tragic end of his erstwhile guardian for the satiation of his lust. In this context, it should also be mentioned that, in 1558, when Bairam was more than 50, he married his 19 year old cousin Salima begam. Meanwhile, Bairam was sacked and Akbar asked him to go to Mecca and on his way to Mecca, Bairam Khan was assassinated on 31st January, 1561, at Patan by some Afghans. Akbar was then 19 year old and hence Akbar and Salima Begam were of the same age. [19]  This is a fine example of fight between two lechers, just like fighting of dogs in their mating season.

 

In this way Akbar, with the army of forcefully abducted women, created a harem of 5000 inmates, in the capital city of Agra . While commenting on it, V A Smith writes, “The imperial harem constituted a town in itself. No less than 5000 women dwelt within the walls, and each of them had a separate apartment. The maintenance and control of such a multitude of women necessitated a carefully devised system of internal administration and the organization of adequate arrangements for discipline. The inmates were divided into sections, each under a female commandant (daroga), and due provision was made for the supply from the ranks of clerks to keep the accounts. A strict method of check was applied to the expenditure, which was on a large scale.” [20] Smith further continues, “The inside of the enclosure was protected by armed female guards. Eunuchs watched on the outside of it, and beyond them again were companies of faithful Rajputs, while troops of other classes posted at a greater distance gave further security.” [20] 

 

Though, following Abul Fazl, Smith wrote above that ‘each of the inmates of the harem were provided with a separate apartment, but in Agra there is not even a single building with 5000 separate rooms. So, the above conclusion is a lie. One can, therefore, easily understand in what wretched condition these unfortunate women were condemned to live. Itmad-ud-daula, the father-in-law of Jehangir, has thrown some light on some other features of the inmates of this harem. If someone had given birth to a female child, she was saved because in future she could be used as a sex-slave. But, if anyone happened to give birth to a male child, he used to be murdered or blinded as in future he could never pose a threat to the throne. It may be mentioned here that, another lecher Ferozshah Tughloq, used to get the private part of the women of his harem sewed, to be sure that they were not having sex with other man.

However, Akbar’s lechery was not confined to his harem of 5000 women and P N Oak, while commenting on this matter, writes, “Despite an exclusive harem of 5,000 women, and all the virgin prostitutes of the realm whose virginity, as Abul Fazl tells us, was at Akbar’s exclusive royal command and could not be violated without special permission by any courtier, the honour of the wives of noblemen and courtiers was itself always subject to Akbar’s sexy pleasure.” [21] Akbar did not spare even the wives of the ministers and nobles of his court, if they happened to draw attention of Akbar’s lust.

To highlight this point, Abul Fazl writes, “Whenever Begams or wives of nobles, or other women of chaste character, desire to be presented, they first notify their wish to the servants of the seraglio and wait for reply. From thence they send their requests to the officers of the palace after which those who are eligible (sic) are permitted to enter the harem. Some women of rank obtained permission to remain there for a whole month.”[2] The above passage is a clear admission that Akbar used to compel wives of courtiers and noblemen, toward whom he felt sufficiently attracted to remain within his harem at least for a month at a time.

To expose another feature of Akbar’s lechery, V A Smith writes, “Grimon’s statement that Akbar had confined himself to one wife and distributed his other consorts among the courtiers is not directly confirmed from other sources.” [22] “This adds a new dimension to Akbar’s lechery because it reveals how women were considered as mere chattel to be freely exchanged among Akbar and his courtiers in a continuous round of sex-traffic.” [19] “Then there was the notorious institution of Meena Bazar, according to which on New Year’s Day, the women of all households had to be paraded before Akbar for his choosing.” [19]

It has been mentioned earlier that Muhammad Ghori, Qutb-ud-din and Iltutmish were sodomites. It has also been mentioned that Babur, Akbar’s grandfather, has given a lengthy description of this sodomic infatuation for a male sweetheart in hia auto-biography. Humayun was no different. Therefore, sodomy was also a precious service of Akbar’s own family… Though, perhaps, Akbar did not engage in sodomy, but many believe that he allowed” it to be practiced by his servants, courtiers and sycophats. Abul Fazal in Ain-e-Akbari provides accounts of some such acts which are too disgusting to even mention. Such perverse gratification was prevalent during the entire Mughal rule, including  Akbar’s times.

 

 

References:

[1] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press, 32..

[2] Akbar The Great A Tyrannical Monarch – http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_ppg.html

[3] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 7..

[4] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, Published by A Ghosh, 298.

[5] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 294.

[6] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 189.

[7] J Todd, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, 2 volumes, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London ,  1957, II, 259.

[8] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 58.

[9] S J Monserrate, “The Commentary,” translated from original Latin by J.S. Hoyland, annotated by S.Banerjee, Humphrey Milford, Oxford Univ. Press, London , (1922),.27.

[10] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 242.

[11] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 47.

[12] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 212..

[13] J M Shelat, “Akbar,” Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, 1964, Bombay. , 90.

[14] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 31.

[15] Blochmann, H., “Ain-e-Akbari,” translation of Abul Fazal’s Persian text, 2nd Edition, Bibliotheca Indica Series, published by the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal., 276.

[16] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 300.

[17] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 99.

[18] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 47.

[19] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 301.

[20] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 359.

[21] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 300.

[22] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 185.

Also read the Part 1  , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 , Part 6 and Part 7 of this series. Next article is here:- Part 9.

July 31, 2009

Distortions of Indian history – Part 7

Original source: Article by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari.

Akbar was a cruel killer:

There are umpteen incidents to show that, like all other Muslim rulers, Akbar was a merciless cruel killer. It has been mentioned earlier, how Akbar beheaded helpless Samrat Vikramaditya Hemraj to earn the title of Ghazi (the slayer of infidel). It has also been mentioned how the so called pseudo secular historians are trying to distort the history and conceal Akbar’s inhuman cruelty. It should be mentioned here the opinion of the renowned historian R C Majumdar in this context. He writes, In this helpless condition, Himu was put to death, according to some, by Bairam, on the refusal of Akbar to kill him with his own hands and, according to others, by Akbar himself at the instigation of his protector.” [1] But still there are some historians, though very rare, who does not hesitate to expose the truth.

Such a historian, Mr S Roy, writes, Akbar accordingly struck Himu with his sword and Bairam Khan followed him. The story of Akbar’s magnanimity and refusal to kill a fallen foe seems to be a later courtly invention. The humane and liberal emperor of Hindustan who preached ‘sulh-i-kull’ (universal toleration) was not born but made.” [2]

In this context, an incident may be described to expose Akbar’s mindless cruelty. The incident has been narrated by Asad Beg in his Wikaya. It reads, At that time the Emperor used to retire for a long interval, after evening prayers, during which time the servants and courtiers used to disperse, assembling again when they expected His Majesty to re-appear. That evening he (Akbar) happened to come out sooner than usual, to hear the news from the Dakhin, and at first found none of the servants in the palace. When he came near the throne and couch, he saw a luckless lamplighter, coiled up like a snake, in a careless death-like sleep, close to the royal couch. Enraged at the sight, he ordered him to be thrown from the tower, and he was dashed into a thousand pieces.” [3] One would be extremely frustrated if he tries to discover such an act of cruelty by a Hindu king, because Hindu kings were human beings.

Humayun, Akbar’s father, blinded his elder brother Kamran so that he could never pose a threat to the throne and Akbar assassinated Kamran’s son for the same reason. To describe this cruelty of Akbar, Vincent Smith  writes,  “Executing Kamran’s son [namely, Akbar’s own cousin] at Gwalior in 1565, Akbar set an evil example, initiated on a large scale by his descendents Shahjahan and Aurangzeb.” [4] ;

There is no doubt that Akbar inherited such inhuman and brute cruelty from his forefathers. As a matter of fact,

Akbar’s ancestors like Babar and Humayun were barbarous and vicious killers, and so were his descendants like Aurangzeb and others’ down the line.Akbar was born and brought up in a illiterate and foul atmosphere characterized by excessive drinking, womanizing and drug addiction.” [5] The so called secular historians of India are trying to project Akbar as the greatest of all Moghals, righteous in his deeds and noble in character. He is being portrayed as the only and truly secular Emperor of the times, very caring and protective of his subjects. And, above all, he is being projected as a divine incarnate. But Vincent Smith in his Akbar – The Great Mogul writes,Intemperance was the besetting sin of the Timuroid royal family, as it was of many other muslim ruling houses. Babur (was) an elegant toper … Humayun made himself stupid with opium … Akbar permitted himself the practices of both vices .. Akbar’s two sons died in early manhood from chronic alcoholism, and their elder brother was saved from the same fate by a strong constitution, and not by virtue. [6] With such an atmosphere to nourish Akbar’s thoughts, it is rather usual for Akbar to become “devil incarnate“, rather than a divine incarnate.[5]

Babar, Akbar’s grandfather, was diabolic killer and a terrible iconoclast and Guru Nanak was an eye-witness to the treatments meted out to the people by Babar when he invaded India in 1521. Nanak was at Sayyidpur, now called Eminabad, 80 kilometres from Lahore, in the Gurjanwala district. Babur ordered a general massacre of the people and thousands of persons were taken as prisoners. The barbarous treatment of prisoners, in the camp, particularly pitilessly lashing of women and children, broke tender heart of Nanak. In his agony he even took God to task.” [7] Guru Nanak said, Thou, O Creator of all things, Takest to Thyself no blame: Thou hast sent Yama disguised as the great Moghal, Babar. Terrible was his slaughter, loud were the cries of the lamenters. Did not this awaken pity in Thee, O Lord? [8]

It has been said above that like all other diabolic and infernal Muslim rulers, Babar was also a terrible iconoclast. Babar’s barbarism desecrated and demolished thousands of Hindu temples and converted several thousands into mosques. “Babar converted famous Jain temple at Chanderi and the Lord Shiva temple at Sambhal into mosques. By the order of Babar, his general Mir Baqi  partially pulled down the Ram Janmabhumi Temple at Ayodhya and converted the same into a mosque.. Babar also demolished the famous Jain temple near Ubhar.” [9]

But our historians to narrate Babar, write, Babur was the best of the rulers of his times. He had eight great qualities, such as prudence and foresight, great personal ambition, skilled warrior, skilled and generous administrator, a man free from religious discrimination and the quality to gain the hearts of the army. Beside that, he was a great admirer of art, music and learning. He was also a poet and could write good poetry in Persian language” [10]

A few words should be said in this context about composing poetry by Babar. While at Ghazni, the lecherous and sodomite Babar became extremely addicted to young boy called Babri and it was the subject matter of Babar’s poetry, with which he enriched his autobiography. Gradually he became so enamored of Babri that he lost interest in his wife Ayesha. At that time I used to meet her at an interval of 10, 15 or 20 days. …Before this I never had conceived a passion for anyone, and indeed never been so circumstanced as either to hear or witness any words spoken, expressive of love or amorous passion. In this situation, I composed a few verses in person of which the following is a couplet –

Never was a lover so wretched, so enamored, so dishonoured as I,

And my fair never be found so pitiless, so disdainful as thou,” Writes Babar in his autobiography.[11]

In another similar verse, Babar wrote –

I am abashed whenever I see my love,

My companion looks at me while I look to the other way.

…     …    …    …    …    …    …    …    …    …     …

I had neither strength to go nor power to stay,

To such distraction you have reduced me

Oh, my (male) sweetheart.” [11]

It has been mentioned earlier that Muhammad Ghori, Qutb-ud-din Aibak and Altamash, all of them were sexual perverts and lascivious sodomites and Babar naturally followed that legacy..

After defeating Rana Sangram Singh at the Battle Khanua, Fatehpur Sikri, Babar massacred nearly 100,000 prisoners of war and another 100,000 civilians and raised two towers with the slain heads of the victims. Akbar seems to have preserved this great legacy of erecting minarets with slain heads of the Hindus in several occasions, as is obvious from the accounts of battles he fought, particularly at Chittore Fort.

Picture of Chattore Fort

Humayun, Akbar’s father, had a similar legacy of cruelty, slaughtering Hindus in thousands and taking Hindu women and children as captives. Many believe that he was even more degenerate and cruel than his father. After repeated battles, Humayum could ultimately capture his elder brother Kamran and subjected the latter to brutal torture. A detailed account is left by Humayun’s servant Jauhar and is quoted by Smith, which says, “He. (Humayun) had little concerns for his brother’s sufferings. One of the men was sitting on Kamran’s knees. He was pulled out of the tent and a lancet was thrust into his eyes. Some lemon juice and salt was put into his eyes.” [12]

One can imagine the cruelty and torture that Humayun was capable of inflicting on others when he subjected to his own brother to such atrocities. Humayun was also a slave to opium habit, engaged in excessive alcohol consumption and a lecherous degenarate when it came to women. He is also known to have married a 14 year old Hamida Begum by force. The cruelties perpetrated by of Akbar’s descendants (Jehangir, Shahjahan, Aurangzeb, etc..) are not entirely different from those of his ancestors. Having brought up in the company and under the guidance of a lineage of drug addicts, drunkards and sadists, it is rather anamalous that Akbar held such a gentle and noble character. Even assuming that he fancied nobility, it is amazing that Akbar let his comtemporaries and Generals, like Peer Mohammad, loot and rape the helpless citizenry that he was ruling! It would however be interesting to observe the incidents in Akbar’s reign and evaluate his character. [13]

After defeating Muzaffar Shah, the ruler of Ahmedabad, in November 1572, Akbar ordered his opponents to be trampled to death by elephants. Hamzaban, commander of Akbar’s forces laying siege to Surat in 1573 A.D. was barbarously punished by Akbar by excision of his tongue. Masud Hussain Mirza, a near relation of Akbar, who had risen in revolt, had his eyes sewn up after capture. … Some of them (300 supporters) were executed with various ingenious tortures. “It is disgusting to find a man like Akbar sanctioning such barbarism which he inherited from his Tartar ancestors”, says Smith.” [14] Such were the acts of Akbar’s barbaric cruelty.

Akbar’s Savagery and Barbarism at Chittor:

In 1567 AD, Akbar advanced with a large army against Rana Uday Singh, the son of Rana Sangram Singh, of Mewar and put the Chottore Fort under siege. But even after 4 months, no indication of surrender was visible from the other side. On the contrary, the Mughal army continued to suffer large scale casualties due to occasional Rajput attack under the leadership of brave Rajput generals Jaimal and Patta.

At last, Akbar ordered to dig two Sabats (a trench covered with leather is called a Sabat) from a far away  places to the wall of the fort. Then explosives in large quantities were dumped at the walls of the fort and a severe blasts collapsed the wall. Expecting imminent fall of the fort, nearly 300 Rajput women sacrificed their lives in Jauhar (self immolation in fire). When the Mughal army entered the fort, nearly 800 Rajput soldiers were alive and all of them were put to the sword.

Next morning, victorious Akbar entered the fort riding an elephant. The Emperor was not so pleased as he had to face a lot of hardship in occupying the fort. At that time there were nearly 40 thousand civilians in the fort and this civilian population had assisted the Rajput army to inflict damage to the Mughal army. And hence they became the target of Akbar’s wrath. To narrate the event, Vincent Smith writes, The eight thousand Rajput soldiers who formed the regular garrison having been jealously helped during the siege by 40,000 peasants, the emperor ordered a general massacre, which resulted in the death of 30,000.” [15] Col Tod, to describe the incident as, writes, The emperor’s proceedings were marked by the most illiterate atrocities.” [16]

But our secular historians are trying hard to hide Akbar’s cruelty and guilt. So, R C Majumdar, to describe the incident, writes, Akbar then gave order for mass execution of 30,000 non-combatants, for which all modern historians have condemned him.. According to Kaviraj Shyamadas, however, out of 40,000 peasants who were in the fort, 39,000 had died fighting and Akbar ordered the remaining 1000 to be executed.”[17] But historian A K Roy writes, Thirty thousand were slain; among them was gallant Patta, who fell after he had displayed prodigies of valour.” [18] While another historian writes, According to Abul Fazl, 30,000 persons were slain, but the figure seems to be highly exaggerated.” [19]

However, it was not possible to ascertain the exact figure of the victims who fell to Akbar’s sword, or rather, it was not manually possible to count the large number of the corpses. According to Abul Fazl, the figure was 30,000, but it is needless to say that he did not count the dead bodies but only made a rough estimate. The actual figure could be 50,000 or 80,000; or 100,000 or more than that. It is really astonishing that, most of our historians have reluctantly avoided the concluding part of the episode.

Akbar had a curiosity to know the actual number of Hindus slain. As it was impossible to manually count the heaps of dead bodies, Akbar ordered his men to collect the sacred threads from the corpses. The order was carried out the sacred threads collected were weighed. What was the result of weighing? Vincent Smith, in this regard, writes,The recorded amount 74½ mans of eight ounce each.” [20] Many believe that Smith was wrong to estimate the weight of a sacred thread and it should exceed 3 ounce each. Man or Maund is an old unit of weight, which is nearly equal to 37 Kg. So, by easy calculations, one can get an idea how many Hindus were slain on that day.

It is being said that, Aurangzeb, the grand grand son of Akbar, promulgated an order that, he should be presented 1¼ maunds of sacred threads daily, collected from slain Hindus. Simple calculations show that 24,000 sacred threads, 3 ounce each, make 1¼ maunds. So, it can be said that, nearly 24,000 Hindus were slain daily during the times of Aurangzab.[xx] (pn oak 576) These fanatic Muslim rulers used to maintain that, more the number of Hindus slain, better would be the place they occupy in jannat or Islamic Paradise.

However the Rajputs, to make the above incident immemorial, treat the number 74½ as cursed and an evil omen. Still today, if someone writes 74½ on the cover of a letter, none but the addressee opens that letter. They believe that if someone opens that letter, his life would also be cursed. .

It has been mentioned above that when Akbar occupied the Chittor Fort, more than 300 Rajput women jumped into fire (Jauhar) so that they may not be abducted to Delhi and dumped into the hell called Akbar’s harem to spend the rest of their lives as prostitutes and sex-slaves. Akbar, the devil incarnate, possessed a inordinate lust for women, just like his ancestors and predecessors. One of Akbar’s motives during his wars of aggression against various rulers was to appropriate their women, daughters and sisters of the defeated Hindu kings. That was the reason, the Rajput women of Chittor prefered “Jauhar”( self immolation) than to be captured and disrespectfully treated as servants and prostitutes in Akbar’s harem. [5]

However, according to the Islamic faith, killing so many kafirs and drenching the Chittor Fort with kafirs’ blood, Akbar had undoubtedly done a great service to Allah and Islam and to seek blessings for this great service, Akbar went to Fatehpur Sikri, bare footed, to his religious guru Salim Chisti. It is needless to say that his guru was extremely delighted after hearing this good news from Akbar. It should be mentioned here that Salim Chisti was a Sufi darbesh and the incident was sufficient to expose the true colour  of the Sufi saints.

History of Jauhar and Sati:

This was not a new phenomenon and the ritual began in 711 AD, as soon as barbaric Muslim invaders set their foot on the Indian soil. In 711 AD, Muhammad bin Qasem invaded Sind,.by the sea through the city port of Karachi . At that time, it was called Devalay (or the abode of the God). There was big and tall temple at the sea shore which could be seen from a long distance. The Hindu King Dahir was the ruler of Sind .

King Dahir had 500 Muslim Arab soldiers in his army. In the mid-night, these Arab Muslims treacherously opened the gate of Dahir’s fort and the army of bin Qasem entered and occupied the fort by massacring the security guards of the fort. When the news of fall of the fort reached the women of the fort, including the women of the royal family, they decided to end their lives by consuming poison. At that moment a minister of Dahir’s court came running to them and said that the Muslims were so lecherous that they rape even the dead body of a kafir woman. So, the Hindu women of the fort immediately decided to destroy their bodies by jumping into fire.Then a great fire was made and all the women burnt themselves to escape humiliation and sexual assault of the lecherous Muslims. The practice was, later on, called Jauhar.

It is well known that, during the Muslim period of Indian history, thousands and thousands of Rajput women sacrificed their lives in Jauhar to save their honour and respect. There was another practice prevalent among the Muslim rulers. On the event of death of a Hindu fighter of their army in a battle, they used to bring the wife of the dead warrior into their harem. But the reluctant Hindu widows chose to burn themselves in the fire of their husbands’ pyre to avoid to be captured and live the rest of the life as sex slaves in the harems of the lecherous Muslim rulers. The practice was known as Sati (or Suttee). The term is derived from the original name of the goddess Sati, who self-immolated because she was unable to bear humiliation of her husband Shiva. The term sati also stands for a chaste woman. However, the Muslim rulers were against this practice as it meant snatching away the prey from the predator.

The so called secular historians of India , to glorify Akbar, say that Akbar was so great and generous that he wanted to ban the practice of Sati. But the incident they project as a proof of their claim, tells, a completely different story. Jaimull was a cousin of Bhagawandas (probably a minister of Akbar’s court) and his wife’s beauty attracted the attention of Akbar’s lust. One day Akbar sent Jaimull to a distant place on a false pretext and before he commenced his journey, Akbar’s men poisoned him. So Jaimaull died on his way. Jaimaull’s wife could apprehend Akbar’s trick and decided to burn herself on her husband’s pyre to avoid living as a prostitute in Akbar’s harem.. Akbar, on the other hand, lost no time to send his men to capture the widow and those who accompanied her. Thus Akbar succeeded to drag the unwilling widow of Jaimull into his harem. [21]

However, the practice of Sati, or voluntary co-cremation with the dead husband, continued even in the British period. Later on the custom got corrupted and in most cases, unwilling widows were burnt by the relatives of the deceased husband to grab his properties and riches. And thus, Sati, once a noble practice, became infamous.The first formal British ban on Sati was imposed in 1798, in the city of Calcutta only, by the effort of Raja Rammohan Roy and Lord William Bentinck, the then Governor General of the British East India Company.

However, after that tragic incident, the Chittorgarh Fort was abandoned for ever and none of the descendants Rana Uday Singh set his foot on the Chittor Fort. All the Kings of Mewar, including Rana Pratap Singh, used Udaypur as their capital the Udaypur Fort as the seat of the government. So, the Chittor Fort gradually turned into a desolate thicket.

References:

[1] R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhury and K. Datta, An Advanced History of India, Macmillan & Co (1980), 439.

[2] R. C, Majumdar, The History and Cultures of the Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (in 12 Vols) , VII ,106.

[3] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, The History of India -As Told by Its Own Historians (in 8 volumes), Low Price Publication, Delhi (1996) VI, 164.

[4] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press, 50.

[5] Akbar The Great A Tyrannical Monarch http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_ppg.html

[6] V. A. Smith, ibid, 294.

[7] R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 308..

[8] R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 306

[9] R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 307.

[10] C Roy, Bharater Itihas (in Bengali), Maulik Library, Calcutta (1985), I, 16.

[11] Babur’s Memoirs, Tr by John Leyden and William Erskine, Revised by Sir Lucal King, p 125-126 (as quoted by P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 268).

[12] V.A. Smith, ibid, 20.

[13] Shelat J.M, Akbar, Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, 1964, Bombay , 27.

[14] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 305.

[15] V.A. Smith, ibid, 90.

[16] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 302

[17].R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 334.

[18] R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 122.

[19] .R C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhury and K. Datta, ibid, (1980), 443.

[20] V.A. Smith, ibid, 91.

[21] V.A. Smith, ibid, 103.

Also read the Part 1 Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5 and Part 6 of this series. Next article is here:- Part 8.

July 25, 2009

Distortions of Indian history – Part 6

Original Source: Article by  Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari, the great historian who has done extensive research on Indian History.  Excerpts and additions to original source follow:

Akbar, The Great (?) Monarch:

It is really amazing and ridiculous that, not only the so called pseudo secular and the Marxist historians of India , but also the Western historians portray the Mughal emperor Akbar as a great monarch. But are there sufficient grounds to project him as a great man? The Indian historians, according to the guideline set by the ongoing politics of Muslim appeasement, have to glorify each and every Muslim ruler including Akbar as a compulsion. But it is really incomprehensible why the historians of the West are also in the race in glorifying Akbar, who, in reality, was a foreign invader and came to India to plunder this country.  Akbar  possessed three qualities – treachery, lechery and butchery. In several occasions, Akbar played vile treachery with the Hindu kings. Akbar was a cruel killer, who butchered innocent Hindus in millions. As a lecher, Akbar maintained a harem of 5000 women, most of whom were abducted Hindu housewives. So it is necessary to make a fresh estimate of Akbar to asses his greatness.Akbar, widely considered the greatest of the Mughal emperors, was only 14 when he ascended the throne in Delhi, by defeating the Hindu king Samrat Hem Raj Vikramaditya, also called Himu at the Second Battle of Panipat. He was descended from Turks, Mongols, and Iranians — the three peoples who predominated in the political elites of northern India in medieval times. He consolidated his power, during first two decades of his reign and bring parts of northern and central India into his realm. He also reduced external military threats from the Pashtun (Afghan), the descendants of Sher Shah, by waging wars against Afghan. He also solidified his rule in India by pursuing diplomacy with the powerful Rajput rulers of northern part of the country, and by admitting Rajput princesses in his harem. [1] Akbar was raised by his uncle Askari and his wife in the eastern country of Persia and Afghanistan.He spent his youth learning to hunt, run, and fight, but he never learned to read and write. The so called pseudo-secular and Marxist historians paint Akbar as a generous, kind hearted tolerant king free from religious bigotry, and a genius with refined tastes in the arts, architecture, music and literature. But it is to be seen, how far their portrayal is true.

In this article, we will look into Akbar’s encounter with Samrat Hem Raj Vikramaditya.

 

Picture of Samrat Hem Raj Vikramaditya

Picture of Samrat Hem Raj Vikramaditya

It has been mentioned earlier that Sher Shah Suri ascended the throne of Delhi on May 17, 1540, by defeating Humayun in a battle near Kannauj and he died in an accident in 1545 AD, in Kalinjar. After his death, anarchy appeared again. The nobles made Jalal Khan, the second son of Sher Shah, the Sultan of Delhi , depriving the eldest Adil Khan as the latter was incompetent, lazy, and ease-loving. After ascending the throne, Jalal Khan assumed the title of Islam Shah. Soon after, a group of nobles made a conspiracy to murder Islam Shah and put Adil Khan on the throne. But the plan divulged and Islam Shah put all the conspirators to the sword.

Chaos after the Death of Sher Shah:

 

On November 22, 1554, Islam Shah, after ruling for 9 years and 6 months, died and his nobles put his minor son Firuz on to the throne. But after a few months, Mubariz Khan, a cousin of Firuz, murdered him and ascended the throne assuming the new name of Muhammad Adil Shah. But he was unsuitable as a ruler. On the other hand, the news of Islam Shah’s death inspired Humayun to invade India and recover his lost territory. At this juncture, Bairam Khan came to Humayun’s help that enhanced his strength considerably and enabled him to re-conquer Kabul, News of these developments made Adil Shah very shaky and he gave up all the responsibilities to his most trusted employee Himu, a Hindu officer, and this incident facilitated Himu to raise himself as the most important man in North Indian politics.

This was the time when the star of Himu’s fortune shone brightest- Adil Shah appointed him the Wzir (Prime Minister) and the incident initiated his rapid rise. But most of the Muslim historians did not like an infidel to hold the highest post in the court of a Muslim king and hence they tried to blacken his character it at every opportunity.

Who this Himu was ? Historian R. C, Majumdar, in this regard, writes, “Himu was born in a poor family of Dhansar section of the Baniya caste, living in a town in the southern part of Alwar”.[2]  Muslim historian Badayuni has described him as a resident of a small town called Rewari in the taluk of Mewat, and according to him, Himu began his life as a green vendor.[2] Others believe that Himu was a hawker in the town of Mewat.[2]However, at a certain stage, he succeeded to draw the attention of Adil Shah, who appointed him the Superintendent of the Delhi market. But by dint of his sincerity and sense of responsibility, he became a favourite of Adil, who started to elevate him to more and more responsible posts. When Adil Shah died, Himu was the Chief of the Intelligence Department and, at the same time, the Head of the Postal Department (Daroga-i-Dak Chowki).

To introduce Himu, the Muslim historian Ahmmad Yadgar, in his Tarikh-I-Salatin-i-Afghana, writes,“There was a man named Himu, who was a weighman in the bazar, who found means to approach the King on different affairs, and in whom he daily reposed more and more confidence. By degrees he became very powerful and influential, so that he managed the business of the State”. [3]

At that time, Junaid Khan, the governor of Bayana, and his son, the phaujdar of Ajmir  rebelled. Adil Shah sent Jamal Khan against him with a large force. But in a severe battle at Kanulapur, Junaid became victorious. The incident made Adil Shah very depressed. Then Himu said, “O Lord of the World, if you will trust me with a small force, I will either overcome Junaid Khan, or perish in the attempt”. [4] The King yielded to his solicitations and sent Himu with 3000 or 4000 horsemen and four war-elephants. Junaid deputed his assistant Daulat Khan to defend Himu. A battle was fought and Daulat Khan was defeated and slain.

Then Junaid himself advanced with 8000 strong cavalry to confront Himu, while Himu had only 3000 horses. So he decided to attack the enemy in the darkness of night and Ahremad Yadgar, in his Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, writes, “The enemy remained on the alert during the three watches of the night; but in the last watch they grew negligent and fell asleep, The soldiers of Adil Shah fell furiously on them on all sides. Himu did not give the time to put enemy their armour and the Afghans, sword in hand, passed through their enemy slaughtering all they met.”[5] Himu then went to the court of Adil Shah and Yadgar writes, “He (Himu) then stood with folded hands in front of the throne. Adil Shah honoured him with a purple khilat (garment), the coller and the skirt of which were covered with jewels”.[6]

At that time, Ibrahim Khan, a cousin of Adil Shah and the governor of Agra , rebelled. Adil Shah sent a detachment against him, but Ibrahim routed them. Then Ibrahim marched towards Delhi and ultimately occupied the city. Inspired by the success of Ibrahim, Ahmmad Khan Sur, the governor of Lahore and brother-in-law of Adil, assumed the name Sikandar Shah and rebelled. In the east, Muhammad Khan Sur, the governor of Bengal revolted and assumed the title of Shamsuddin Muhammad Ghazi. So the empire of Sher Shah Suri got divided into four parts, Delhi and Agra went to Ibrahim Khan, Punjab went to Sikandar Shah, Bengal to Shamsuddin Muhammad and the remaining part under the control of Adil Shah.

Meanwhile, in 1555, Sikandar Shah invaded Delhi , in a severe battle he defeated Ibrahim and thus Delhi went under the control of Sikandar. On the other hand, the rivalry among the Afghans provided a great opportunity for the Mughals to recover their lost empire. In November 1554, Humayun left Kabul , advanced towards Lahore , and in February 1555, gained control over the city almcst without any resistance. Then Sikandar Shah marched against Humayun with a 30,000 strong cavalry. A severe battle took place at Machhiara near Ludhiana and Sikandar Shah suffered a complete defeat. Sikandar then marched again against Humayun with 80,000 horsemen, but he was again defeated in a battle near Sirhind and fled to Sivallk Hills.

 

Ascendency of Himu:

In that hour of crises, Adil Shah Appointed Himu the Wazir, or the Prime Minister of his court and handed over civil, military, finance and, in fact, every other responsibility to him. It is really surprising that Adil Shah, a Muslim king, selected a Hindu kafir for the highest position of his government, and there is no doubt that had Adil could find Muslim candidate suitable for the post, he would certainly not have selected an infidel like Himu for the post. The incident shows that the competency of Himu, for the post, was beyond any dispute.

After assuming the new responsibility, Himu at once marched against Ibrahim and defeated him twice, first at Kalpi and then at Khanwa. To narrate Himu’s victory, Nizamuddin Ahmroad in his Tabakat-i-Akbari, writes,“Adil now sent, the bakkal, who was the Wazir, with a large force, and with 500 war-elephants and artillery, against Agra and Delhi . When Himu reached Kalpi, he resolved to dispose of Ibrahim first and hastened to meet him. A great battle followed, in which Himu was victorious, and Ibrahim fled to his father at Bayana, Himun followed and Invested Bayana, which he besieged for three months”.[7] Himu then marched against Muhammad Shah and a battle was fought at Chhapparghatta , a place 20 miles away from Kalpi. Muhammad Shah was defeated and Himu gained control over Bengal.[8]

 

Following the chaos over the succession of Islam Shah (Sher Khan Suri’s son), as mentioned above,Humayun reconquered Delhi in 1555, with the help of an army partly provided by his Persian ally Shah Tahmasp.But a few months later, on January 26, 1556, Humayun died and Bairam Khan, the guardian of Akbar, cleverly concealed the report of Humayun’s death in order to prepare for Akbar’s accession to the throne. On February 24, 1556, Akabar, a 13 year-old boy, was proclaimed Shahanshah (Persian for “King of Kings”) of Hindustan . by Bairam Khan at Kalanaur (GurdaspurPunjab).

 

At that time, Himu sought permission of Adil to attack Delhi . Ahmmad Yadgar narrates, “Himun went in front of the throne and said, “O King, the case is this; he (Akbar) is now a child of ten years old, who has lost his father, and the Mughal army is not yet firmly established. It is easy to root up a small plant”. Adil Shah derived confidence from his speech and prepared a powerful force. He sent 7000 horsemen and 20 war-elephants with Himun, who went march by march to Gwalior”.[9] From Gwallor, Himu advanced towards Agra and Adil Shah, on the other hand, went to the safe place at the fort of Chunar.

 

As Himu got closer to Agra , frightened Iskandar Khan, the Mughal governor of the city, fled to Delhi . So Himu occupied Agra practically without resistance and then the victorious Wazir marched towards Delhi . Alikuli Khan, the Mughal governor of Delhi , also prepared a strong force to confront Himu and a fierce battle followed. Ahmmad Yadgar, to narrate the incident, writes, “When Himu saw that the Mughals were in good spirit and the Afghans disheartened, he advanced with his own division and routed them. They (Mughals) were unable to rally, and as they were utterly defeated, they took to flight. Himu pursued them and slaughtered many, … So much plunder of Mughal army fell into Himun’s hands that it was impossible to take an account of it -160 elephants, l000 horses of Arab breed and an immense quantity of property and valuables”. [10]

 

Then victorious Himu entered Delhi and Nizamuddin Ahmmad, in his Tarikh -i-Akbari , writes,”Himun had greatly vaunted his achievements at Delhi and had taken to himself the title of Raja Bikrsmjit”.[11] To narrate the same victory, Ahmmad Yadgar, in his Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana, writes, “Himun rejoiced this victory, sent an account of his success, together with the Spoils captured from the Mughals, to Adll Shah, who was exceedingly pleased when he received it,…He (Adil Shah) gave a great festival and sent Himun a dress of honour, adorned with jewels and worked with gold threads”[12] Ahmmad Yadgar continues to write,” … he (Himu) entered Delhi, raised the Imperial Canopy over him and ordered coins to be struck in his name. He appointed a governor (of Delhi) of his own and brought the Delhi territory and the neighbouring parganas under his control and in order to console the King, he sent an account of the victory in these words,”Your slave, by the royal fortune, has routed the Mughal army, … but I hear that Humayun’s son commands a numerous force and advancing against Delhi”.[13]

 

Himu’s Misfortune:

 

The news of defeat of the Mughal governor of Delhi and the skill and braveiy of Himu reached the Mughal prince Akber in time. Nearly 10 months later, Akbar, with a great force of 26,000 horsemen under the command of Bairam Khan marched towards Delhi . So Ahmmad Yadgar, in his Tarikh-i-Salatin-i-Afghana,writes, “He (Akbar) marched without halting, with Bairam Khan. …When they reached Thanesar, a census was taken of the army, which was found to consist of 26,000 horsemen”. [14] And to describe Himu’s army, Nizamuddin Ahmmad in his Tarikh-i-Akbari, writes, “He (Himu) had gathered under his command a mighty force and had 1600 war-elephants. With those, he hastened to meet the Imperial (Mughal) army”. [15]

 

The battle began in the morning on 5th November, 1556, at Panipat and to describe the same, Nizamuddim Ahmmad writes, “Himun then advanced with his elephants, and made such a determined charge on the Imperial army that the left wing was shaken…. Himu then drew off his forces, and made an assault upon the centre, which was under the command of Khan-Zaman. He led all his elephants against the Khan’s men, who received him with shower of Arrows. An arrow pierced the eye of Hemun, and came out at the back of his head. When those who were fighting under him saw his condition, their hands were paralyzed, and they broke. The Imperial forces pursued them, and cut many of then, to pieces.” [16] According to Abul Fazl, Himu had divided his army into three divisions and he himself was leading the central division with 500 elephants and 20,000 Afghan and Rajput horsemen. [17] So, many believe, when Himu was on the verge of winning the this battle, the accident occured, leading to his defeat.

 

Ahmad Yadgar had tried to invent a reason for Himu’s defeat, which is extremely incredible. He writes,“The evening preceding the day on which he (Himu) expected the battle, he went to the sanctified mausoleum Kutub-ul-Aktab of His Highness Kutb-ul-Hakk, (the pole-star of religion of Islam), ……and placing the head of entreaty on the august threshold, vowed that, if he were destined to conquer Delhi, if the throne of Delhi were granted to him, he would become a Musulman on his return to Delhi, and diffuse the religion of Muhammad”[18] Yadgar continues, “The Almighty (Allah) gave them (Mughals) victory. But he (Himu) perjured himself, and did not become a Musulman, or forsake his heathen prejudices; nay, he even persecuted the Musulmans. But at last he saw, what he did see”. [18]

Yadgar also writes that, on the previous night, Himu became extremely disheartened after a dream of bad omen. He writes, ”.. he (Himu) beheld in a dream, a torrent come down and carry away the elephant on which he was mounted. When he was nearly drowned, a Mughal came and cast a chain round his neck, and drew him out”. On the next day, an interpreter said, “The torrent which you saw is the Mughal army,..and the chain signifies; the blood which will flow from your body when you are wounded.” [18] This made Himu much frightened, but he said, “The very reverse of the dream will happen”. [18]

But, in fact, it was Akbar who got frightened by observing the valour of Himu and his mighty force, and Bairam Khan, to inspire him, said, “This is the commencement of His Majesty’s reign. This infidel has routed the whole Mughal army, and is now making preparations against us. If you do your best in this business, with one heart and soul, Hindustan is yours. I place my trust in Allah. If we fail in this, you, whose homes are at a distance of 500 kos (1000 miles), will not be able to find an sylum”. [19]

 

However, the military skill and bravery that Himu displayed in the battle field on November 5, could not have been ignored by even the Muslim historians. So Ahmmad Yadgar writes, “Himu, having made himself ready for action came out into the plain, and seated himself in a howda on an elephant in order the that he might be able to overlook and superintend his troops, …. Bairan Khan also drew up the people of Chaghatai to the right and left in battle array,.. Bairam Khan placed Akbar Mirza’s own private tent in an elevated position, and left 3000 horse to guard him, … Himu was excessively arrogant on account of his troops and elephants. He advanced, fought, and routed the Mughals, whose heads lay in heaps, and whose blood flowed in streams. He thus at first vanquished the Mughals……” [20]

 

But fortune was not with Himu and his victory turned into a defeat due to an accident and Ahmmad Yadgar writes, “… by the decree of the Almighty, an arrow struck Himu in the forehead. He told his elephant driver to take the elephant out of the field of battle, then the Afghans saw that the animal was retreating, they believed that Himun was flying. … as no benefit is ever derived from disloyalty, he Sustained a complete defeat”. [20]

 

To narrate the same incident, Vincent Smith writes, “On November 5, Himu succeeded in throwing both the right and the left wings of his opponents into confusion, and sought to make his victory decisive by bringing all his mountain-like elephants to bear on the centre of the enemy, commanded by Khan Zaman. Probably he would have won but for the accident that he was struck in the eye by an arrow which pierced his brain and rendered him unconscious” [21]

 

Akbar’s Display of Greatness:

After the battle was ended, in accordance with the ghastly custom of the times, a tower was built with the heads of the slain. This “tower of heads” tradition and ceremony was religiously observed by the “magnanimous” Akbar, like his ancestors.

According to Yadgar, Alikuli Khan could trace the elephant of Himu in the forest, brought it back and placed Himu before Bairam Khan, and writes, “Bairam Khan … caused Himu to descend from the elephant, after which he bound his hands, and took him before the young and fortunate Prince, and said, “As this is our first success, let your Highness’s own august hand smite this infidel with the sword”. The Prince, accordingly, struck him, and divided his head from his unclean body”. [22]

 

Nizamuddin Ahmmad, to describe the incident, writes, “Shah Kuli Khan,… drove the elephant , along with several others which had been captured in the field, to the presence of the Emperor. Bairam Khan Khan Kanan then put Himu to death with his own hand.” [23] So, according to Nizamuddln Ahmmad, Bairam Khan executed himu with his own hand. And similar was the view maintained by Badayuni, Abul Fazl and Faizi. So, Badayuni writes, “Bairam Khan said, “This is your first war (ghazd), prove your sword on this infidel, for it will be a meritorious deed”, Akbar replied, “He is now no better than a dead man, how can I strike him? If he had sense and strength, I would try my sword”. Then, in the presence of them all, the Khan, the warrior of the faith, cut him down with his sword. Himun’s head was sent to Kabul, and his body to Delhi, to be exposed over the gates”.[23]

 

But according to Vincent Smith, Akbar himself struck Himu with his sword to earn the title of Ghazi , and writes, “Bairam Khan desired Akbar to earm the title of Ghazi, or slayer of the infidel, by fleshing his sword on the captive. The boy naturally obeyed his guardian and smote Hemu on the neck with his scimitar. The bystanders also plunged their swords into the bleeding corpse. Hemu’s head was sent to Kabul to be exposed, and his trunk gibbeted at one of the gates of Delhi “. [24]

He also writes, “Akbar, a boy of fourteen cannot be justly blamed for complying with the instructions of Bairam Khan. … The official story, that a magnanimous sentiment of unwillingness to strike a helpless priso ner already half dead compelled him (Akbar) to refuse to obey his guardian’s instructions, seems to be the late invention of courtly flatterers, and is opposed to the clear statement of Ahmed Yadgar and the Dutch writer, van der Broecke, as well as to the probabilities of the case”. [24] That was the pathetic end of the saga of a great son of Mother India, who tried his best to restore independence of this ancient country, our beloved motherland, by defeating the Muslim invaders and occupiers, but did not succeed only due to a mere accident. Furthermore, it is a matter of great regret that the people of this country have forgotten that great Hindu hero and the fascinating story of his life, achievements and sacrifice.

Akbar’s Subsequent Display of Greatness:

But the tale of Himu did not end with his death. Intelligence came to Akbar that Himu’s father, his widow and other members of his family were living in Alwar, with their properties and wealth, and, on the pretext of a possible revolt by Haji Khan, the governor of Alwar, he sent a detachment to Alwar, under the command of Nasir-ul-mulk, a.k.a, Pir Muhammad. The Mughal has brought the Mewat region under the rule of Delhi and Pir Muhammad executed Himu’s father. To narrate the incident, Abul Fazl, in his Akbamama, writes, “Himu’s father was taken alive, and brought before Nasir-ul-mulk, who tried to convert him to the faith (of Islam); but the old man said, “For eighty years, I have worshipped God in way of my own religion; how can I forsake my faith? Shall I, through fear of death, embrace your religion without understanding it?” Maulana Pir Muhammad treated his question as unheard, but gave an answer with the tongue of the sword”. [25] Immense treasures were taken with the family of Hemu whose aged father was executed.” This “tower of heads” tradition and ceremony was religuously preserved by the “magnanimous” Akbar.

Historian R. C, Majumdar, while offering his respect to Himu, writes, “Such was the noble end of the family of a great Hindu who was born in a humble life, but made his way to the throne of Delhi by dint of sheer ability and military skill – a unique episode in the history of India during the Muslim rule” [26]

Almost all the Muslim chroniclers have tried to paint Himu a traitor and disloyal, because he ascended the throne of Delhi , instead of offering the same to his master Adil Shah. But, in this context, R. C. Majumdar writes“No one today can reasonably claim to know the thoughts in Himu’s mind. But a little reflection will show that there was nothing unreasonable or immoral in the aspiration of Himu. No doubt, personal ambition played a great part, but it may not be altogether wrong to think that he was also inspired by the idea of founding a Hindu Raj. This is supported by his assumption to the title of Vikramaditya”. [27] And, perhaps, most shameful as well as most deplorable is the role of the so called secular and the Marxist historians, the most despicable group of people of independent India who, like the Muslim historians, are continuing their efforts to blacken Himu’s character by portraying him a betrayer to his Muslim Master.

So, the historian R. C. Majumdar, in this context, writes, “Unfortunately, Himu’s history has been written almost wholly by his enemies who dreaded him most, and, far from doing justice to his greatness, they have tarnished his name with unmerited odium. It is time to resuscitate the memory and give a true account of the life of Hemchandra, a really great hero, whose dreams and achievements have been forgotten by his countrymen”.[26]

So, it is really unfortunate that our so called secular historians, following their sinister political guideline of Muslim appeasement, are glorifying the foreign Muslim invaders, including Akbar, by concealing their demonic activities, while projecting a real patriotic fighter, like Himu, as a villain. These people, guided by the said policy of Muslim appeasement and motivated by allurement, are going on writing distorted history of this country and thus depriving the people and their posterity from getting acquainted with their real history.

 

The Muslim rulers who massacred hundreds of thousands of innocent Hindus within a single day in umpteen occasions, these historians are projecting those killers as honest and benevolent rulers. Those blood-thirsty Muslim rulers who, by coercion and torture, converted hundreds of millions of Hindus to Islam at the point of sword, these despicable sub-humans called secular historians are portraying those Muslim despots as noble hearted magnanimous kings. The foreign Muslim invaders who demolished hundreds of thousands of Hindu temples or converted them into mosques, these historians are describing them as generous people liberal in the matter of religion. The abominable and lecherous Muslim invaders, who carried hundreds of thousands of Hindu women and children as captives to the Middle East to be sold as slaves, these wicked historians are painting them as kind and soft-hearted rulers. Those foreign Muslim invaders, who forcibly occupied the forts and palaces of Hindu kings and did not lay a single brick, these historians are highlighting them as great admirers of architecture or great architects, and we fools are cramming those narrations years after years,without assessing the realities of those narrations.

But we, the citizens of free India , have every right to know their true history. They have every right to know, who this Himu was and what were his achievements. We have the right to know the spectacular life of this great son of India , a great patriot who sacrificed his life to defend the foreign occupier Akbar. And, had not by an accident, an arrow pierced Himu’s eye and rendered him unconscious on November 5, 1556, the day on which the Second Battle of Panipat was fought, the people of India would have a different history to read- the chapter of Mughal Dynasty would have been replaced by the Hindu Dynasty of Vikramaditya Heraraj. And at same the time, the hour has arrived to decide who was really Great, Akbar or the Emperor Vikramaditya Hemraj, who now being slighted as Himu.

References:

[1] http://www.culturalindia.net/indian-history/akbar.html,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Akbar_the_Great , http://www.boloji.com/history/011.htm

[2] R. C, Majumdar, The History and Cultures of the Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (in 12 Vols) , VII ,97
[3] H. M.Elliot and J, Dowson, History of India ; As Told by Its Own Historians, Low Price Publications , Delhi , (in 8 Vols) , V, 48,
[4] H. M. Ellict and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 48.
[5] H. M, Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 50.
[6] H. M. Hllict and J. Dowson , ibid, V, 51.
[7] H. M. Elliot and J, Dowson, ibid, V, 244
[8] H. M., Elliot and J- Dcwson, ibid, V, 490.
[9] H. M. Elliot and J, Dowson, ibid, V, 59.
[10] H. M. Elliot and J, Dowson, ibid, V, 61
[11] H. M, Elliot and J. Dowson , ibid, V, 252.
[12] H. M- Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 60,
[13] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V,61-62,
[14] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V,62,
[15] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 252.
[16] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson , ibid, V, 252.
[17] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 252-53.
[18] H. M, Elliot and J. Dcwson, ibid, V, 63.
[19] H. M, Elliot and J, Dowscn, ibid, V, 64.
[20] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 65.
[21] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press, 38.
[22] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 66.
[23] H. m. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, V, 253.
[24] V. A. Smith, ibid, 39.
[25] H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, VI, 21.
[26] R.C. Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bnavan , VII ,100.
[27] R. C. Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 101.

Note:- 1st PU History book mentions two lines of Hemu, while devotes 10 pages to Akbar.

Also read the Part 1  , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 and Part 5 of this series. Next article is here:- Part 7.

July 16, 2009

Distortion of Indian history – Part 2

By Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari 

**** Excerpts from Faith Freedom ****

What is the utility of studying history? From history, one learns the achievements of his ancestoes and their successes and failures. It enables him to analyse the reasons that brought the said successes and failures and hence helps him taking correct steps in present crises. So, if that history is erroneous or distorted, one fails to take proper steps to confront the national problems.

 But in India today, this right is being pitiably denied. They are permitted to know the history which is horribly distorted due to political reasons. Particularly the history of Muslim conquest and the period of Muslim rule, that lasted for nearly eight centuries, has been so distorted that it is almost impossible for an individual to salvage the true history from those garbage of lies and deceits.

Agra Fort

Agra Fort

The Fort at Agra:

Like the Red Fort in Delhi, the fortress at Agra also suffers similar misrepresentation. The invincible fort at Agra, as we see it today, was not built by any foreign Muslim invader and its authorship is falsely atributed to Akbar.. This marvellous exhibit of Hindu architecture, was also built by the Hindu kings well before the arrival of the barbaric Muslim invaders in India. Like the Red Fort in Delhi, the Muslim invaders forcefully occupied it and used it as their royal court and residence. During the time of Mahabharata, Agra belonged to the kingdom of Mathura ruled by the oppressive king Kansa, who used the prison at Agra to incarcerate his political rivals. In this regard, the Muslim chronicler Abdulla in his Tarikh-i-Daudi writes, “He (Sultan Sikandar Lodi) generally resided at Agra; it is said by some that Agra became a city in his time, before which it had been a mere village , but one of the old standing. The Hindus, indeed, Assert that Agra was a strong place in the days of Raja Kansa, ruled in Mathura, and who confined everyone who displeased him, in the fort at that place, so that in course of time it had become the established state prison”.

But in the same work, chronicler Abdulla says that Muhammad of Ghazni captured Agra and reduced it to a heap of ruins and writes, “In the year when the army of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni invaded Hindustan, he so ruined Agra that it became one of the most insignificant villges of the land and  after that it improved from the times of Sultan Sikandar, and at length, in Akbar’s time, became the seat of the government of Delhi, and one of the chief cities of Hindustan”. It is important to note here that the above description admits that before the invasion of Mahmud of Ghazni, Agra was  city and not a village. 

It is important to note here that there are other evidence that suggest that the fort of Agra was there during the time of Babur. Babur set his foot at the fort of Agra for the first time on May 4, 1526, and before that his son Humayun had taken control of the fort. Thereafter, Babur left Agra on February 11, 1527, and proceeded to face Maharana Sangram Singh in the battle of Khanua, leaving the fort in the care of his son Humayun. So, the rational conclusion is that, there was a massive fort, made of stone, at Agra under the control of a Rajput King Jaipal and Muhammad Ghori occupied it by defeating Jaipal in the year 1192. Thereafter, when the fort came under the control of the Mughals, Akbar might have undertaken some repair and renovation work of the then existing fort.
Above all, there is no dispute among our historians that, whether it is the Red Fort in Delhi or the invincible fortress at Agra, Hindu style, particularly the Gujarati and Rajasthani style, is very prominent in the construction of the interior palaces, courts, halls and so on.

So, a group of historins, having more rational views, believe that all the historical monuments of Delhi and Agra, the authorship of which is at present being wrongly atributed to the Muslim rulers, were, in fact, built by the Hindu kings well before the arrival of the foreign Muslim invders. They also believe that in their endeavour to give these monuments an Islamic face, the Muslim rulers, in the name of repair and renovation, removed almost all the Hindu symbols from these monuments and buried them somewhere within the peripfery of those monuments. So a thorough scientific and archaeological investigations is urgently called for revealing the truth and settling all such contrary views.

Read the full article here.

References:

[1]  H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson, The History of India, as told by its own historians

(in 8 Volumes), Low Price Publications,  New Delhi (1996) IV, 450.

[2]  H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson (ibid)  V, 295.

[3]  H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson (ibid) IV, 522.

[4]  V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press (1982), 76.

[5]  H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson (ibid) IV, 263-64.

[6]  R. C. Majumdar, H. C. Raychaudhury and K. Datta, An Advanced History of India, MacMillan & Co (1980), 579.

Also read Distortion of Indian history – Part 1

Blog at WordPress.com.